Osama and Saddam, sitting in a tree...

[GePap]

probably not K I S S I N G...

Hussein Warned Iraqis to Beware Outside Fighters, Document Says
By JAMES RISEN

Published: January 14, 2004


ASHINGTON, Jan. 13 — Saddam Hussein warned his Iraqi supporters to be wary of joining forces with foreign Arab fighters entering Iraq to battle American troops, according to a document found with the former Iraqi leader when he was captured, Bush administration officials said Tuesday.

The document appears to be a directive, written after he lost power, from Mr. Hussein to leaders of the Iraqi resistance, counseling caution against getting too close to Islamic jihadists and other foreign Arabs coming into occupied Iraq, according to American officials.

It provides a second piece of evidence challenging the Bush administration contention of close cooperation between Mr. Hussein's government and terrorists from Al Qaeda. C.I.A. interrogators have already elicited from the top Qaeda officials in custody that, before the American-led invasion, Osama bin Laden had rejected entreaties from some of his lieutenants to work jointly with Mr. Hussein.

Officials said Mr. Hussein apparently believed that the foreign Arabs, eager for a holy war against the West, had a different agenda from the Baathists, who were eager for their own return to power in Baghdad. As a result, he wanted his supporters to be careful about becoming close allies with the jihadists, officials familiar with the document said.

A new, classified intelligence report circulating within the United States government describes the document and its contents, according to administration officials who asked not to be identified. The officials said they had no evidence that the document found with Mr. Hussein was a fabrication.

The role of foreign Arab fighters in the Iraqi resistance to the American-led occupation has been a source of debate within the American government ever since the fall of Baghdad in April. Initially, American analysts feared that thousands of fighters would flood into Iraq, seeking an Islamic jihad in much the same way an earlier generation of Arabs traveled to Afghanistan in the 1980's to fight the Soviet occupation.

Military and intelligence officials now believe that the number of foreign fighters who have entered Iraq is relatively small. American military units posted along the border to screen against such an influx have reported that they have seen few signs of foreign fighters trying to cross the border.

In December, American military officials in Iraq estimated that foreign fighters accounted for no more than 10 percent of the insurgency, and some officials now believe that even that figure may be too high. Only 200 to 300 people holding non-Iraqi passports are being detained in Iraq by American forces, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, a military spokesman, told reporters in Baghdad in December.

"They're a threat, but the vast majority of the personnel that we have in detention for activities against the coalition, for activities against Iraqi citizens, remain personnel from this country," General Kimmitt said then.

But several officials said American forces were not certain of the accuracy of the American intelligence on the issue and acknowledge that there could be more foreigners inside the country than they currently think. "I've seen numbers from a couple hundred to a couple thousand," said one United States military official.

Another unresolved issue has been the level of coordination between foreign fighters and Iraqi insurgents, many of whom are former members of Mr. Hussein's security apparatus. Military and intelligence officials say they have detected cooperation at the tactical level, on individual attacks, but have less evidence of any coordination at a broader strategic level. Asked whether it appeared that Iraqi insurgent leaders had heeded Mr. Hussein's advice to keep foreign fighters at arm's length, officials said it was difficult to tell without more information on the full extent of the cooperation between the sides.

The use of suicide car bombings as a weapon in the insurgency has made American officials wonder whether Islamic militant fighters are behind some crucial attacks. The secular Iraqis who were members of Mr. Hussein's government are unlikely recruits for martyrdom, American officials said.

"There is no question that some foreign fighters have crossed into Iraq," observed Judith Yaphe, a senior research fellow at the National Defense University in Washington and a former Middle East analyst at the C.I.A. "How many? I don't think there are more than a couple hundred. Are they significant in the insurgency? I don't think they are. There are too many Iraqis who know how to do these things. The real question is the suicide bombers, that's not strictly speaking an Iraqi thing."

In addition to its value in understanding the nature of the enemy that American and allied troops now confront in Iraq, the document found with Mr. Hussein could also be grist for further debate about his relationship with Islamic fundamentalists.

As President Bush sought to build a case for war with Iraq, one of the most hotly debated issues was whether Mr. Hussein was in league with Mr. bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Senior officials at the Pentagon who were certain that the evidence of connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda were strong and compelling found themselves at war with analysts at the C.I.A. who believed that the evidence showed some contacts between Baghdad and the terrorist organization, but not an operational alliance.

At the Pentagon, several officials believed that Iraq and Al Qaeda had found common ground in their hatred of the United States, while at the C.I.A., many analysts believed that Mr. bin Laden saw Mr. Hussein as one of the corrupt secular Arab leaders who should be toppled.

[oedo]

this or similar articles were printed on various pages by now. nonetheless, you should post the link.

so the current situation is that the existence of WMDs has been disproven. and now there´s even the evidence that there were no links between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

dear fellow Americans, don´t let the Bushies get away with that. (unless, of course, you think it´s ok, that your GI´s have to die just because "Saddam is an evil person")

[GePap]

the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/14/in...14INTE.html?hp

[rah]

Some people should be reminded that there are a lot of americans that feel that this is just an extension of 10 years ago, and that we're finishing off what we started.
Irag signed a cease fire and tried to weasel every way possible over compliance.

No excuse was necessary and they really weren't listening or cared what the rational for going back was, since they already had one.

Whether thinking this way is right or wrong is immaterial. That's the way people feel and it's the main reason why Bush doesn't take that big of a PR hit when people accuse Bush of lying. THEY DON"T CARE, they think there was a valid reason already.

To these people, it doesn't make a difference and they won't be convinced otherwise. I think they've stopped listening. Calling them stupid for believing it is also silly, since it's just a matter of opinion/belief.

[Shi Huangdi]

Co-operation was certainly a better deal beforehand than afterwards. Before, co-operation was at least reasonably possible, as both had the ability to help each other strike at the USA. Afterwards, with fighting going on for control of the country there was more of a risk of being co-opted by the Islamists.

[Ben Kenobi]

Actually, I see articles like this being very good news for Bush and co. Much better that the various Muslim groups retain internal differences than their collaboration.

[Ramo]

Co-operation was certainly a better deal beforehand than afterwards. Before, co-operation was at least reasonably possible, as both had the ability to help each other strike at the USA. Afterwards, with fighting going on for control of the country there was more of a risk of being co-opted by the Islamists

Actually, cooperation was much more likely after the American invasion than before since Saddam wouldn't have to worry about provoking an American response by assisting al-Qaeda (before the invasion, of course he had absolutely no incentive to help out al-Qaeda); also manpower and resources become much, much more valuable after the invasion. Being co-opted by Islamists is a pretty irrelevent thing, as well as unlikely given the numbers needed to make an appreciable impact, when the most powerful military in the world is occupying his country and he's living in a hole in the ground.

[JohnT]

So, he writes a CYA* memo after he's been deposed, and that's that?

*CYA Memo - "Cover Your Ass" Memo.

[Ramo]

Yeah, and we're gonna let him live free in Florida after his atrocities against Kurds, Iranians, and Marsh Arabs.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by rah
To these people, it doesn't make a difference and they won't be convinced otherwise. I think they've stopped listening. Calling them stupid for believing it is also silly, since it's just a matter of opinion/belief.

first sign of chronic stupidity.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by rah
To these people, it doesn't make a difference and they won't be convinced otherwise. I think they've stopped listening. Calling them stupid for believing it is also silly, since it's just a matter of opinion/belief.

If so many people wanted the US to attack Iraq before 9/11 why didn't Bush do it then?

I think these people don't want to admit that they were fooled. They have changed their opinion (or allowed it to be changed) because they are stupid dittoheads.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kidicious


If so many people wanted the US to attack Iraq before 9/11 why didn't Bush do it then?

I think these people don't want to admit that they were fooled. They have changed their opinion (or allowed it to be changed) because they are stupid dittoheads.

I agree: after all, of the goal of attacking Iraq was so popular, why not campaing in 2000 on a pro-war platform?

The fact is that even afer 9/11, if the admin. had presented the same rationales that existed back in 2000 for invading Iraq they would not have had popular support for a war- maybe 30-35% saying yes (but of course, 30% will always back war, even if you said invading Mexico), but no chance of over 50%.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Actually, I see articles like this being very good news for Bush and co. Much better that the various Muslim groups retain internal differences than their collaboration.

Their goals (and it's not really correct to refer to Baathist, Saudi royalists, or Nasserites as Muslim groups since that religious identity is incidental to their aims) have always been diametrically opposed, so there will never be real cooperation beyond any short-term "an enemy of my enemy" stuff.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
If so many people wanted the US to attack Iraq before 9/11 why didn't Bush do it then?

If the arguments here at Poly were any indication, there was still an underground of support for going back into Iraq and "finishing the job." O'Neil revealed that the Bush Administration was making plans before 9/11 to attack Iraq. This isn't something you pull off 8 months into your administration. We probably would have attacked Iraq a year earlier had we not been distracted by bin Laden.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious


If so many people wanted the US to attack Iraq before 9/11 why didn't Bush do it then?

I think these people don't want to admit that they were fooled. They have changed their opinion (or allowed it to be changed) because they are stupid dittoheads.

Bush hadn't been in office long enough before 9/11 to have all his boys get a feel for their new jobs, and a host of other reasons.

No Presidential candidate in a hundred years or more has campaigned during peacetime on a "let's go to war against __________" platform, because it doesn't sell. Doesn't mean that lots of people didn't want to wave a magic wand and annex Baghdad, it just means that there are other priorities. After all, it's not like Saddam was going anywhere, or was ever going to rise to the level where he could really challenge us.

[Ben Kenobi]

to Baathist, Saudi royalists, or Nasserites as Muslim groups since that religious identity is incidental to their aims)

True, but it still helps when they snipe at each other rather than at the 'Great Satan.'

[GePap]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Bush hadn't been in office long enough before 9/11 to have all his boys get a feel for their new jobs, and a host of other reasons.

No Presidential candidate in a hundred years or more has campaigned during peacetime on a "let's go to war against __________" platform, because it doesn't sell. Doesn't mean that lots of people didn't want to wave a magic wand and annex Baghdad, it just means that there are other priorities. After all, it's not like Saddam was going anywhere, or was ever going to rise to the level where he could really challenge us.

The great problem is that from january 2002 by which time the main fighting in afghanistan was done till august of 2002 the admin. did diddly about trying to lay an international groundwork for invading Iraq- then all of a sudden from august to march they have this marathon were they make the was about an immidiate danger, now or never! go go go! with us or against us!charade. If these rocket scientist were having meetings about this in Feb 2001, you would think once if was feb 2002, they should have had some idea how to start selling the idea of invading iraq to the world and given themselves a whole year plus of intensive diplomacy, instead of really 6 month period in which they only did intesive diplomacy the last 4, and did that with a lot of useless demogagery attached and strawmen as it now turns out.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If the arguments here at Poly were any indication, there was still an underground of support for going back into Iraq and "finishing the job."

Before 9/11? I'm sure there are some who wanted us to go back into Iraq, but nothing close to a majority.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
O'Neil revealed that the Bush Administration was making plans before 9/11 to attack Iraq. This isn't something you pull off 8 months into your administration. We probably would have attacked Iraq a year earlier had we not been distracted by bin Laden.

Yes, they wanted to attack Iraq, but they didn't believe that they could get the political support until 9-11.


There is a large group of Americans that would not have supported the invasion just on the grounds that Iraq was defying us. That group was fooled by the Bush administration. Most of them don't want to believe that they were fooled. That's human nature. And that's why they don't care. It's not because Iraq was defying us.

[chequita guevara]

You have to remember that the Administration was realing from all those corporate backers going belly up. Then there were the revelations about the government's collosal screw-ups leading to 9/11. The Bush Administration was under fire most of the year. It wasn't until they dropped their Iraq bomb in August that all that criticism just vaporized.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by rah
Some people should be reminded that there are a lot of americans that feel that this is just an extension of 10 years ago, and that we're finishing off what we started.
Irag signed a cease fire and tried to weasel every way possible over compliance.

No excuse was necessary and they really weren't listening or cared what the rational for going back was, since they already had one.

Whether thinking this way is right or wrong is immaterial. That's the way people feel and it's the main reason why Bush doesn't take that big of a PR hit when people accuse Bush of lying. THEY DON"T CARE, they think there was a valid reason already.

To these people, it doesn't make a difference and they won't be convinced otherwise. I think they've stopped listening. Calling them stupid for believing it is also silly, since it's just a matter of opinion/belief.

Your President Bush's shoeshine boy, aren't you?

[MRT144]

I agree with rah, the people that support the invasion
or support bush dont care about the reasons or the lies.

[MrFun]

I know -- I agree with Rah's reasonable post for the most part.

I knew that invading Iraq was the right thing to do, for the wrong reasons.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by rah
Some people should be reminded that there are a lot of americans that feel that this is just an extension of 10 years ago, and that we're finishing off what we started.
Irag signed a cease fire and tried to weasel every way possible over compliance.

Considering the first violations of said cease fire were the U.S., U.K. and France unilaterally imposing an unmandated No-Fly Zone and then bombing Iraqi radar sights, I can't say I agree with that.

[oedo]

Originally posted by rah
Whether thinking this way is right or wrong is immaterial. That's the way people feel and it's the main reason why Bush doesn't take that big of a PR hit when people accuse Bush of lying. THEY DON"T CARE, they think there was a valid reason already.

those people you´re talking about, are they the same people who once cared very much about, whether Billy Boy had oral sex or vaginal sex with Monica? or were these completely other people who cared about that?

and if so, I wonder, is there´s anyone in this forum willing to admit and able to argue, that he very much cared about Bill Clinton´s lying about having sex with Monica, while he doesn´t care about G.W. Bush´s lying about reasons for a war?

and how would this person think, if Bill Clinton came up with that WMD and OBL stuff and G.W. Bush got the blow job by Monica?

[rah]

Actually I see it as the same thing, since there are many Clinton supporters that didn't care about the lying about his BJs but are outraged that Bush seemingly lied about the WMD. Nothing you tell them will change their minds and they stopped listening also.

So calling either group stupid for feeling that way is just plain silly.

[GePap]

Actually I see it as the same thing, since there are many Clinton supporters that didn't care about the lying about his BJs but are outraged that Bush seemingly lied about the WMD. Nothing you tell them will change their minds and they stopped listening also.

Yes, while lying is lying, the magnitude of the difference in topics is immense. The impeachement of Clinton was a transiatory event in American politics. Even if all were to go well in Iraq, it was still a multi-year commitment that would change the relation of the US to the whole ME and islamic world.

[rah]

But there is one BIG difference.
Clinton knew 100% that he got a BJ

There is no proof that Bush knew 100% that there were WMD or no connection. And I don't believe he did for sure. I could be convinced that he wanted to attack Iraq and was looking for excuses, but there are many people saying that the intel community was bending the truth to tell them what then wanted to hear.
THAT"S A BIG DIFFERENCE.

[oedo]

Originally posted by rah
But there is one BIG difference.
Clinton knew 100% that he got a BJ

great one!

however, I doubt it was on his agenda right after he became president.

[GePap]

Originally posted by rah
But there is one BIG difference.
Clinton knew 100% that he got a BJ

There is no proof that Bush knew 100% that there were WMD or no connection. And I don't believe he did for sure. I could be convinced that he wanted to attack Iraq and was looking for excuses, but there are many people saying that the intel community was bending the truth to tell them what then wanted to hear.
THAT"S A BIG DIFFERENCE.

Okie dokie....

Bush knew 100% he did not have definitive proof. He did not act as if there was any doubt about iraq when it came ot WMD's. Based on his public comments Bush NEVER commented that it was possible Iraq had no WMD's.

The sad truth is that the really BIG LIES, like Bush's lie, always live on, becuase you can never really put an end to them. Sadly, my quote form hitler is common.

[rah]

Originally posted by oedo



great one!

however, I doubt it was on his agenda right after he became president.

IT WAS ON HIS AGENDA BEFORE HE BECAME PRESIDENT< WHILE HE WAS BEING SWORN IN AND probably every day he was president.

And GePAP, there is proof that Clinton lied. There is still no definative proof that Bush did. HAS he been tried and found guilty? Or are you saying presumption of innocence doesn't apply anymore. And I'm not saying he didn't lie. I don't know for sure yet.